Well, certainly not what I was expecting.
I have two major comments:
1/ This semantics is much closer the the DAML+OIL model theory than to my
OWL model theory. In particular, it does not have any of the following
sorts of entailments
E1/ John in Student intersect Employee
entails
John in Employee interset Student
E2/ John in atleast 2 friend
entails
John in atleast 1 friend
The absence of these entailments has major impact throughout the
document, particularly in the uncompleted sections.
The main difference I see between this semantics and the DAML+OIL model
theory is in its stance with respect to classes as instances.
2/ The document claims (implicitly) that all RDFS graphs are GHOWL graphs
(in Section 2 just before the syntactic characterization of OWL nodes).
This is incorrect, as GHOWL graphs must use list vocabulary correctly.
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research